from the not-our-film-studios dept

Over the past few weeks, we've mentioned in a couple of posts that the Copyright Office is currently taking public commentary for changes to the DMCA's anti-circumvention exemptions provisions. While we've thus far limited our posts to the Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment's bid to have those exemptions extended to preserving online video games and the ESA's nonsensical rebuttal, that isn't the only request for expanded exemptions being logged. A group of filmmaker associations put in a request last year for anti-circumvention exemptions to be extended to filmmakers so that they can break the DRM on Blu-ray films in order to make use of clips in new works. At issue is the fact that these filmmakers are able to make use of clips in these new works thanks to fair use but cannot readily get at them due to the DRM on the films themselves.

This is confusing and creates uncertainty, according to the International Documentary Association, Kartemquin Films, Independent Filmmaker Project, University of Film and Video Association, and several other organizations. Late last year they penned a submission to the Copyright Office, which is currently considering updates to the exemptions, where they argued that all filmmakers should be allowed by break DRM and rip Blu-rays. The documentary exemptions have been in place for years now and haven’t harmed rightsholders in any way, they said.

“There is no reason this would change if the ‘documentary’ limitation were removed. All filmmakers regularly need access to footage on DVDs and without an exemption to DVDs, many non-infringing uses simply cannot be made,” the groups noted.

So, there are several groups that lobby for documentarians going to bat for the larger filmmaking world, having seen just how beneficial the exemptions they enjoy have been to the documentary craft. Frankly, it's nice to see associations such as these not simply staying in their own lane and instead advocating for their larger craft as a whole. Unlike, say, the MPAA which leapt to respond with claims of how awful all of this would be.

A group of “joint creators and copyright owners” which includes Hollywood’s MPAA, the RIAA, and ESA informs the Copyright Office that such an exemption is too broad and a threat to the interests of the major movie studios.

The MPAA and the other groups point out that the exemption could be used by filmmakers to avoid paying licensing fees, which can be quite expensive.

Which, of course, is precisely the point of these exemptions. An end-around of fair use by locking up content behind DRM in order to extract licensing fees from those that legally would otherwise not have to pay them is a special kind of perversion of the DMCA. Not to mention copyright law as a whole, actually. Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption. What the MPAA is arguing is that these exemptions, which would do much to promote new work, should be cast aside in favor of a system in which those new works live at the pleasure of the licensing schemes of the major movie studios. Unlike the group petitioning for the exemptions, the MPAA isn't even bothering to hide who's interests it cares about.

If the filmmakers don’t have enough budget to license a video, they should look for alternatives. Simply taking it without paying would hurt the bottom line of movie studios, the filing suggests.

“Many filmmakers work licensing fees into their budgets. There is clearly a market for licensing footage from motion pictures, and it is clear that unlicensed uses harm that market.

“MPAA members actively exploit the market for licensing film clips for these types of uses. Each year, MPAA member companies license, collectively, thousands of clips for use in a variety of works,” the group writes.

The Copyright Office has limited the exemption to the documentary genre for a good reason, the creators argue, since non-documentaries are less likely to warrant a finding of fair use.

Except, thanks to the silliness of reserving fair use as an affirmative defense rather than a clearly defined statute, whether a use qualifies as fair use or not is a question to be answered after the use, not before. And that question isn't a valid reason to lock up content behind DRM from filmmakers that could make fair use of it.

The MPAA goes on to suggest that if the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress were to allow these exemptions, it would lead to "widespread hacking" that would ultimately defeat the DRM in Blu-ray discs entirely. Limiting the exemption to documentaries has kept this from happening because the documentary market is smaller. None of that, however, serves as a true copyright argument and instead is, again, all about the licensing fees Hollywood is able to extract by locking up content on discs behind DRM.

It is nice of the MPAA to lay its loyalties bare for all to see, however -- major movie studios and nobody else, it seems.

Economics of movie creation

Some of the clips in movies took millions to create for short 2 second piece of awesomeness. For example everyone knows The Matrix has great helicopter scene which has supposedly cost huge amount of money to create. Now these filmmakers want to get this content for free in their movies. How is the economics of movie creation working in this situation? First one to create it bears the cost, and everyone else gets it for free? The calculations are not really reasonable. It is expected that the author of this awesomeness should have some way to get his money back, before other filmmakers flood the market with copies of the same content.

Of course most of the money in films comes from first 2 weeks of theatherical release, but dvd release coming months afterwards would be in jeopardy, if internet's hobbyists would freely duplicate the work without consiquences.

Too bad

'I could get money from it' does not(or at the very least should not), trump fair use. If they could use the clips thanks to fair use, and the only thing prohibiting it is an abuse(or 'use as designed' depending on how you look at it) of the law that makes getting the clips illegal because it would involve breaking DRM, then the technical/legal measure that is eliminating even the possibility of fair use of a work is one that needs to go.

Re: Too bad

> 'I could get money from it' does not trump fair use.

It is _NOT_ fair use to rob a bank for 2 million bucks. Same happens for movies, except you're not robbing faceless institution(the bank), but instead a poor author who wanted to create best possible product that he can afford.

Re: Re: Too bad

One of the worst things to happen to movies (or any other piece of IP) is for it to be obscure. One good way to eliminate obscurity is to use bits in other works (which might be seen as an homage, and cause discussion which might lead to more people spending money on the work) and of course give appropriate credit to the original originator.

Re: Re: Too bad

One of the worst things to happen to movies (or any other piece of IP) is for it to be obscure. One good way to eliminate obscurity is to use bits in other works (which might be seen as an homage, and cause discussion which might lead to more people spending money on the work) and of course give appropriate credit to the original originator.

"... Oh, and I also sprinkled dandelion seeds on your lawn before I lit the match."

Oh come on, if you're going to go beating up on a strawman and bringing out the 'won't someone think of the creators?' shtick, go all out. It's not just robbing a poor author, it's tracking them down, lighting their house on fire, kicking their dog(giving them a dog first if necessary), and telling their children santa isn't real.

If you're going to try to go with a baseless emotional plea to argue your case, get all the angles, not just some.

(I do love how seem to have mixed up your examples though, because last I checked most 'poor authors' do not have millions to spend on special effects, so even if fair use was this horrible thing the only people who would be dinged here would be those with money to burn.)

Re: Re: Too bad

This coming from the schmuck who thinks that the public domain doesn't exist and the expiration of copyright on something means the original author is given the right to expunge all copies of that work from the world, forever.

(Actually it wouldn't even be the original author who does that because the public domain occurs at least 50 years after the author has already died. So your original claim about the idea being to support the author is even less sensible. Not that you're sensible to begin with.)

Re: Re: Too bad

I'm lost on why anyone is bothering to respond to you after this insane statement.

Copyright INFRINGEMENT is not theft. Trying to compare the two only demonstrates just how poorly you understand what copyright law is supposed to be doing and what it isn't.

This is why fair use DOES allow anyone to copy something you spent 2 million bucks on without your permission or paying you a dime under the right circumstances and for the right reasons. Because the law recognizes that you AREN'T stealing anything from anyone, even when you're copying doesn't fall under fair use.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Too bad

I believe that thinking of it as feeding the troll is the wrong way to approach it. He will continue to spout his misinformation whether you respond or not. We should look at this as giving cogent and reasonable responses to his limited view of the world not for him, but for anyone else reading it. There are other people close to his way of thinking that are on the internet and we can only get through to them by responding to poor positions by being clear and reasonable. Allowing unreasonable people to continue talking without any push back gives them what could be considered a win by anyone who is reading it and has a similar position.

We can only move this world in a positive direction by continually responding and contesting poor positions. This takes effort and it is understandable if an individual becomes disenchanted or lacks time to respond. However, as a group, we must respond or run the risk of an apparent win by irrational people

Re: Re: Too bad

Re: Economics of movie creation

Fair use still has to apply. You can't just cobble together a movie made of different clips of action movies, or steal the Matrix's helicopter scene because you're too lazy to make your own. Not only would that be tough to argue fair use on, but it makes you look lazy and pathetic. (Unless you're going way over the top with it and making a parody.)

But you *can,* say, have the Matrix playing in the background of a five-second bar shot. Or include the scene in a documentary about the creation of the Matrix. Or have it as an easter egg in a bank of TVs monitoring something else for the plot.

This exemption is only for clips that *already meet fair use standards* but for the fact that they only legally exist in media that *can't be legally accessed.* It's like saying "it's fair use for you to reproduce any photograph on this webpage, but anything you copy from this page will be pasted as garbled nonsense, and it's illegal to screenshot it. But we'll send it to you via email if you pay us $200 -- you can't post it anywhere someone else could use it, though, or we'll sue."

If your argument is that removing the DRM results in a flood of pirated movies onto the internet, well, I'm sorry to tell you, but there are literally HD movies pirated and uploaded online for streaming, before they even hit the theater. Pirates don't care about legality, just possibility, and it's already possible for them to rip away.

Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> This exemption is only for clips that *already meet fair use standards* but for the fact that they only legally exist in media that *can't be legally accessed.*

This sounds dangerous. The reason is that "fair use" has a property that "copies are allowed to be created (under certain circumstances)". The people who need the advice most, can only remember "copies are allowed", but they always forget that it's very limited circumstances where it applies. And thus "fair use" is being misused to give cloud of legalness to otherwise pirate operations.

Given that the history of "fair use" is being repurposed to allow all kinds of stuff like ripping and mixing&matching of content, it's undermining the basis of copyright protections. We need stronger copyright protections, not weaker.

Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

The people who need the advice most, can only remember "copies are allowed", but they always forget that it's very limited circumstances where it applies. And thus "fair use" is being misused to give cloud of legalness to otherwise pirate operations.

By all means, share what you think those 'limited circumstances' are. What should, and should not be allowed under fair use. I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea based upon your past comments, but just in case I've got it wrong, and for those who aren't familiar with your previous comments stumble, it would be nice to have your thoughts on the matter clearly presented.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

For authors, less than 3-5 words per 300 pages of text copied from existing products.

Well, you just used more than 3-5 words when you quotes the question being asked, so I guess you don’t really believe the foolishness you’re spouting.

For users, enjoying the product in your own home, without transferring it to network or showing it to many people.

That’s not fair use because fair uses have to be infringing but for fair use. Copyright doesn’t grant authors a right to control “enjoying the product in your own home” so there is no need for fair use for that in the first place.

For sales channels, money must flow to the authors

A lot of your ideas just have nothing to do with fair use at all, but this is a doozy. Not only does it have nothing to do with fair use but it’s insultingly paternalistic, and it is contrary to the strong principle that people should be able to engage in contracts freely absent a strong public purpose otherwise. If an author wants to sign a contract that treats him badly, who are you to tell him he cannot be allowed to do so?

Anyway, the reality of fair use is that it is the catch-all exception to copyright of last resort. If no other special exception applies, but it would be contrary to the public purpose of copyright (which has nothing to do with benefiting authors) to let the rules be enforced, then fair use applies and the rules cannot be enforced as to the fair use.

This is why it is impossible to define it; it’s about what’s fair under the circumstances. Under the right circumstances, it’s fair to copy an entire book. Under the wrong circumstances it’s not fair to copy even three words per 300 pages. There’s no rule that can work for fair use, other than to consider all of the relevant circumstances in deciding. And that’s what the law is. You clearly don’t understand the first thing about it, based on your ridiculous post.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> Haven't you heard? Rules only apply to other people.

When you're following more than 100 rules at the same time, it's not significant problem for professional programmers, but other people have trouble understanding how the actual process works. Supposedly humans make mistakes, and it's difficult to understand how someone can follow all 100 rules at the same time without introducing tons of errors to the output. But robots never were humans, so they don't need to make mistakes like required in the above rule.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

Congratulations on expanding upon another useless tangent that doesn't actually defend your position. So you're saying it's okay to make mistakes now despite the ton of insistent comments that it's not?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> > For authors, less than 3-5 words per 300 pages of text copied from existing products.> Well, you just used more than 3-5 words when you quotes the question being asked,

Well, obviously I have tons of books and software source code that I have authored to offset the quotes. This is what it means to be an author, you exchange books to the quotes (and supposedly make money doing it)...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

So what are the names of the tons of books and software source code? I need to know what they are so I can avoid infringing on your precious API copyright. Or are they so many that you can't even afford to cite a single one?

Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

Re: Economics of movie creation

> For example everyone knows The Matrix has great helicopter > scene which has supposedly cost huge amount of money to > create. Now these filmmakers want to get this content for > free in their movies. How is the economics of movie creation > working in this situation?

If they really factored in hypothetical licensing earnings when calculating costs for their movie they probably should get a better accountant next time.

Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> If they really factored in hypothetical licensing earnings when calculating costs for their movie

It's not free to buy equipment, rent castles, create wardropes, buy ferraris, buy computer time, actor's salary, shoes for the director, 3d special effects, camera tracking gadgets, meals for the whole team, roses for the actor's cat, bathtub for the horror scene or simply find famous people. All these are fixed costs that every movie project need to burn some money.

Market is already filled with _other_ movies, but what really ticks authors off is competing against illegal copies of your own work. Competition on price is kinda nasty when pirates can provide the service for free, and still your fixed costs are burning hole to your bank account.

Successful projects are more difficult to pull off than nasa spends effort to go to moon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

"Sure there's articals here on Techdirt arguing that piracy is normal market forces, but that doesn't make it legit."

Exactly. Whether or not you like it, piracy exists, has always existed and always will exist. Even if you somehow eradicated piracy, there are reason why people do it, and the things that make them not want to pay you money now will still exist even if you take away their ability to see the movie for free. Piracy is usually a symptom of a market that's not properly serviced, and the way to deal with it is to service the demand, not whine that it's there.

Noting that this is reality does not mean that you think it's a good thing. But, that's life. If you hate the fact that you have to sit in traffic for an hour during your morning commute, you either find a way to deal with it or find a way to avoid it. Pretending that rush hour congestion does not exist and then being surprised by it every morning and demanding other people pay you for the lost time you didn't account for is just dumb.

"What is being argued is that a software-based DRM solution won't be able to tell fair use from non-fair use."

Which is absolutely true, because there are too many factors not contained in metrics accessible to software that determine such things. Anyone who argues otherwise really doesn't understand how the real world works.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> And no one here is arguing that piracy is fair-use.

fair use is a defense to copyright infringement lawsuit. Pirates gets sued for copyright infringement. So fair use is mostly useful for pirates, who have trouble finding real reasons why their activity is legal -- i.e. when they examined the computers for the requested files, they managed to find it in folder called "warez".

> Sure there's articals here on Techdirt arguing that piracy is normal market forces, but that doesn't make it legit.

> What is being argued is that a software-based DRM solution won't be able to tell fair use from non-fair use.

Guess DRM was necessary because controlling piracy was otherwise difficult. After all DRM schemes got hacked by organized groups and products lost their valuation once the DRM was hacked, end user's fair use might not be the most important consideration when designing a DRM system.

We still haven't seen any reason why end user can't use the product from their own home, without distributing the product all over the globe. It would be obvious and trivial solution, if they just kept the bits locked in their home. But no, they need to spend tons of time first hacking the DRM, then creating gaming servers for cheating in the games, and the whole activity has no other purpose than remove authors from their money source.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

For each of your points:

First, fair use is used as a defense for far more than piracy (though I somehow doubt it has been used to defend piracy). Last Week Tonight uses it to comment the news. Reviews of all sorts use it to comment on the media. And that's only scratching the surface!

Second, copying APIs is common practice in software development for reasons I won't go into now. And it's never problem before Oracle sued over it.

And finally, not only is fair use not a consideration for DRM systems but they CAN'T be. Software isn't nuanced enough. Also I've very much enjoyed examples of entertainment that achieves a high-level of artistic quality without using a business that requires DRM. It can be done and it can be done well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

APIs have been involved in disputes before, but you're kidding yourself if you think it had anything to do with piracy as you originally claimed. Your arguments seem to be predicated on distorting what is and isn't piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> you're kidding yourself if you think it had anything to do with piracy as you originally claimed.

It is one place where they actually reached fair use defense in court - and always after huge copy-paste operations which were designed to "replace" the originalproduct with pirated clone. But "We just copied the interface" does not really follow the fair use rule for authors... The requirements for product authors are significantly stricter than what ordinary end users need to follow. Your ordinary piracy operation is built from ordinary users, with only small copyright restrictions. Product authors are professionals who know better than copy-paste the whole product. => what these cases are handling are significantly worse than your average piracy operation. They wouldn't put billions damage awards to normal piracy, but in these cases, they're the bread and butter of these disputes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

We're dealing with the guy who thinks that when the copyright on something expires, it's the moral-bound duty of the planet to purge all copies of that something from existence so newer things have a chance in the market. Not only that, he thinks that existing intellectual property law grants him the right to demand this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

The thing is we developers often want to swap on software component out for another, or to allow those using our software to do the same. Case in point browsers all offer roughly the same API for websites to use. And GNU got started by copying UNIX's API (thereby helping all it's components work together), and god knows how valuable that's been to the software industry. Sure both of these have eventually become standards, but those standards didn't consider that APIs could be copyrighted and as such Oracle's stance is dangerous.

And when the software components don't offer the same APIs, the Gang of Four "Design Patterns" (frequently required reading for jobs) recommend adding a wrapper to fix that problem.

Oh, and most relevant is that Oracle's core business is in duplicating an old IBM API.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> but those standards didn't consider that APIs could be copyrighted and as such Oracle's stance is dangerous.

If you have any text file stored in computer, every word in that file gets copyright protection, given to the person who wrote the file. Usually they transfer the copyright to their employer, who then sells the product to customers. Already like 3 words is a copyright violation, if it's copied from another product, so there's no reason to assume that apis are any different. In this case they copy-pasted the whole api, which is significantly larger than those 3 words. Just the choice of the letters in the text file gets copyright protection, and there's astronomically huge amount of possible alternative designs you can use to design your own interface.

There's no real reason for them to clone someone elses work. Those compability arguments are completely broken -- entering someone elses popular market is no good reason to do it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

"If you have any text file stored in computer, every word in that file gets copyright protection, "

Not entirely true.

"given to the person who wrote the file"

What if a person didn't write the file?

"Usually they transfer the copyright to their employer, who then sells the product to customers."

It's telling that you think this is the only reason someone would create something.

"Already like 3 words is a copyright violation, if it's copied from another product"

Not really.

"There's no real reason for them to clone someone elses work"

There absolutely is. Your argument just depends on pretending those don't exist.

"Those compability arguments are completely broken"

So, you support overbearing copyright from preventing people from making things compatible with each other. As with most copyright maximalists - I'm glad the real world doesn't work the way you think copyrights says it should. The world you're positing sounds hellish to work in.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> preventing people from making things compatible with each other

What is wrong with designing your own interfaces and making them work different way. They didn't get android's java programs to run in existing sun workstations, so your compability argument is somehow broken. Java promoted "it runs everywhere", but google simply couldnt implement it, so whatever they did for compability, it wasn't the right approach to go.

> The world you're positing sounds hellish to work in.

It's significantly worse than that. People can turn to robots very easily, if you're not careful.

"What is wrong with designing your own interfaces and making them work different way"

Incompatible systems are a nightmare to work with and vendor lock in is a bitch. I can tell you've never worked in a real world IT job if you think that incompatibility is a good thing.

I do love the way that you're using several systems that depends completely on open compatibility to make these claims, though. The very medium you are using to communicate could not exist with incompatible bespoke interfaces. The OS you're using probably depends on some code that was "copied" by your standards, too.

> But, you just said that the very act of trying to do so is wrong. Now, you're saying it's OK as long as it works perfectly?

Well, they should know it _beforehand_ whether the plan will succeed (within the deadline). It's no point trying and failing, causing more damage than not trying at all. Trying can only be attempted once it's absolutely certain that the plan will succeed in it's goals. Any other solution will just cause more damage in global market.

I'm not sure which world you exist in, but it's certainly not the one the rest of us are living in. No industry project should even be attempted unless there's a 100% guarantee of success within a set deadline? Either you've worked on extremely boring projects with zero need to connect externally or you were somehow shielded from all the parameters that go into major projects - *especially* those with a difficult or uncooperative collaborator such as the one you're attacking.

You didn't log in this time, but I get the feeling that the name tp refers to the value of the projects you were involved in, or the industry worth of your resume. There's no way you can have any experience with actual projects worth a damn and hold the opinions you assert.

> No industry project should even be attempted unless there's a 100% guarantee of success within a set deadline?

Yes, good plan is to let CEO promise the feature to the world before you let programmers start working on the project. This will give good pressure to your team to actually try their best to get it on deadline.

He really doesn't. You can tell he has never been involved in any project planning, budget calculations, or business planning. Every single step along the way is an estimation of the probability that the project will succeed with certain assumptions that change as you get more information. He is almost directly saying that knowing how to do any project is 100% known before the project is started. I don't think there are any examples of this....ever.

To recap this thread: he thinks that projects are only worth starting if they're 100% guaranteed to succeed, has invented some world-changing gadget he can't possibly name because it would just blow everyone's minds, is a master programmer despite not knowing the difference between Java and Javascript, thinks that fair use requires a licence, thinks that compatibility with other programs requires piracy and believes that the way to combat piracy is to create a completely different file format for every country as that will free companies from the terrible burden of having a global rather than local market.

It's pure comedy gold. That's even before we get to his comments about movies and other non-software industries.

Should we tell him that unless he wrote his computer up from opcodes to browser all by himself, then the programs he's using were made with methods he apparently considers to be piracy, and therefore by using them he's directly enabling the "pirates" that made them.

What is wrong with designing your own interfaces and making them work different way.

Because you then have to write every program that you need, and cannot use programs written by other people because they all use different interfaces. The result is that everybody has to re-invent the text editor, and nobody can go on to develop a word processor.

> everybody has to re-invent the text editor, and nobody can go on to develop a word processor.

This sounds like can of worms. Cloning MS word has significant copyright problems, since the file format is unusable without cloning _every_ feature of MS word. Exact copy is required for it to work at all. And that is known to be illegal. So if people are not developing a word processor, it's because doing so would be so illegal that it's guaranteed to cause tons of legal paperwork and popcorn for the punters.

There's tons of people who wanted to do it, but was scared of the copyright regime enough that they dumped their plans and started creating something more useful.

"Cloning MS word has significant copyright problems, since the file format is unusable without cloning _every_ feature of MS word."

Absolute laughable bullshit, with numerous real world examples that show you exactly how wrong you are.

Seriously, give it up. You're not only ignoring the points others are making, you're inventing things to pretend you're right about the ones you do answer.

"So if people are not developing a word processor, it's because doing so would be so illegal that it's guaranteed to cause tons of legal paperwork and popcorn for the punters."

Erm, just one thing - you *do* know that not only are there a great many other word processors out there, that Microsoft's attempt was nowhere near being the first one developed, right? From your comments so far it wouldn't surprise me if you're deluded enough to be thinking that MS Word was a wholly original product, but I just want to make sure.

> Microsoft's attempt was nowhere near being the first one developed, right?

Being first isn't required. Designing the product in such way that any attempts at compability with it results in illegal end product is just genious design. Everyone thought IBM with OS/2 couldn't compete against microsoft, but in reality it was illegal for them to implement the features that the market wanted.

> deluded enough to be thinking that MS Word was a wholly original product

It used to be one of the most successful products on the planet. At least they can do marketing well enough to push their products to everyone and their squirrels.

It is by your argument. According to you, if you're not the first, then any attempt at making a compatible competing product is equal to piracy. Which means that, by your own story, you think that Microsoft created Word illegally. That's literally your argument.

"Designing the product in such way that any attempts at compability with it results in illegal end product"

Please, stop lying.

"Everyone thought IBM with OS/2 couldn't compete against microsoft"

Erm, I'd look at the history of OS/2 if I were you.

"It used to be one of the most successful products on the planet"

Mostly due to some very shady tactics and the market lock-in you demand. Nothing to do with creativity. In actual fact, if you're following your own argument, Microsoft only got where they are because others weren't allowed to make compatible products and so the market had no other choice. Hardly something to boast about if creativity is your metric.

"At least they can do marketing"

Yes. They're successful due to marketing NOT creativity as you're trying to pretend. You do know the difference, right?

It's not even about creativity, although that seems to be the angle he's trying to push for. He's literally demanding that no software be compatible with a competitor's, which is insane both in terms of practicality and the mental health of anyone who has to deal with the systems he wants.

Whatever he thinks he's saying, his argument is totally divorced from any reasonable reality. It's just highly amusing that he's using a medium that only exists due to open standards to make it.

Option 1: you're involved with something monumentally important that would clear away all arguments with the merest mention of it, but you can't say what it was because it would detract from the argument

Option 2: you have nothing, so want to bullshit about something you did so that you can argue from authority because you're failing so badly with the facts everyone else can see

> if you has you would know how much creativity relies on building on the works of others.

Only if you have problems creating it yourself, you should opt for some external companies or people to do it for you. Of course subcontracting is a thing, but you'll just get problems in the long run, when the price gets higher on a whim and your solution is tied to that one provider. Creating it yourself is the only safe bet.

This coming from the guy who says that Disney gets a free pass on benefit of doubt for lifting creative ideas from the public domain... which he hates... Damn, the logic knots this jackass puts into the spaghetti he uses for a brain...

Oh, and if you're truly building it all yourself that assembler must not depend on any operating system. Which means you need to start with a mechanical assembler, for which you'll need to dig up an old punch card computer!

Essentially if a programmer weren't allowed to use existing code (legalities currently handled license and decreasingly contract law), said programmer would essentially have to recreate the entire history of computing and thus not get anything done.

Also, you will need to create and utilize your own semiconductors arranged in a suitable fashion in order to construct a processing device to run your self created operating system so that you can run your own language be it assembler, compiler or interpreter.

Oh - and you will also need to create your own power plant to run your home made computer system. Do you intent to connect to the outside world? Well ..... there is a bunch more stuff you will need to create yourself.

> programmer would essentially have to recreate the entire history of computing and thus not get anything done.

Who said you're allowed to use whatever other people created, especially in your own profession where you have no problems creating all the technology that you need in the future? It's your own future that you're building, not someone elses. You think that they just hand their work to you for free? First spent 20 years writing some bullshit code, and then when it's finished and becomes successful, you come and take it without compensation?

The world doesnt just work that way. Especially in your own profession, you need to create _everything_ that you need to survive yourself, not just the topmost layer. If you can't do it, you're not really a programmer.

There seems to be people taking shortcuts. Copyright infringement is one such shortcut, which has been marked illegal. Executing your own profession does not need to be easy, it just needs to be able to build a fully working system from scratch. Dependencies need to be stable, so that you can trust that they still exists the whole time when your system is in use.

"Who said we're allowed to use other's work? Usually in the software field the developer of the software we're about use."

Bear in mind that earlier in this thread he's actually referring to APIs and making software compatible with other software. He's literally trying to say that every program should be an island, with every line of code unique and unworkable with another piece of code. The world he describes is a nightmare for sys admins and end users.

I'm building a picture, I'm imagining a low level grunt who never got anywhere with his coding because he insisted on trying to be original rather than meeting any spec or deadlines. He then got Peter Principled up to middle management, where he crashed and burned when his project failed disastrously, and is now bitter that the concepts succeeded wildly after a competent team ran with it.

It does if you need code to interoperate according to set standards and protocols.

"Unique code is absolutely necessary, because there's no reason to redo what other people have already done."

When there's no reason to redo it, you just use the same code others have produced and build on it. You're demanding that people don't do that, and instead rewrite the code in some unique way to achieve the same functionality.

I'm not sure what it is you think you're arguing here, but the actual words you're typing are demanding that code be pointlessly redone every single time it's needed.

> When there's no reason to redo it, you just use the same code others have produced and build on it. You're demanding that people don't do that, and instead rewrite the code in some unique way to achieve the same functionality.

No rewriting is necessary. We expect that other companies do not enter the same market area. The only way to enter the market is via illegal means and thus smaller entities are not supposed to try it. Only if you can absorb billions of green pieces of paper, you can enter the market, and then copyright lawsuits are not a big problems since you can pay your way out of them before spending tons of legal resources/time to handle the problems.

Why do you think you have the permission to enter some market? The Oracle vs Google lawsuit only happened because they wouldnt want to pay their joining fee, even if they had the money.

> > "Well, if implementing the feature requires copyright infringement"> Most of the things you're blathering on about require no such thing, though. Certainly none of the examples you've given require that.

The whole API issue in Oracle java lawsuit was about api definitions where google copy-pasted the whole java api.It's just failure by google, if they can't regognize it to be illegal operation.

"The whole API issue in Oracle java lawsuit was about api definitions where google copy-pasted the whole java api."

So, it was the specific implementation that Google chose to create that was the problem. Not the fact that they attempted to make a compatible product. Had they done it another way, it would have been fine. So, the opposite of what you started off claiming.

It's a slow journey, but you seem to be joining us in the real world now.

Not to the people who actually have to use and administer the product, they're not. That is obviously why you failed - you seem to hate your customers and wish to make life as difficult as possible for them.

"the real problem is that they're not allowed to enter the java market at all"

Says who? Copyright law doesn't say so, as long as it's not infringed while creating a compatible product . The reality of how markets work sure as hell say that monopoly is NOT a good thing. So where are you getting your strange ideas from?

> > "the real problem is that they're not allowed to enter the java market at all"> Says who? Copyright law doesn't say so, as long as it's not infringed while creating a compatible product .

Well, oracle's software obviously has been designed in such way that their market position is reflected in the software source code, and if the source has clear indications that cloning the java api is dangerous operation, oracle has clearly marked their software in correct way.

After markings are in place, it's google's responsibility to find the subtle hints while designing products that touch oracles java environment. If it clearly says google is not allowed to enter the market, it would be stupid for such powerful company to not take the hint.

and the issue is moot, since they were clearly infringing the java api copyrights when creating their platform, given that the legal paperwork is all about fair use.

"Well, oracle's software obviously has been designed in such way that their market position is reflected in the software source code"

So what? If no law was broken in making a compatible product, there's nothing wrong with doing so. Badly designing something in a way that you think deters competitors does not make competing products illegal.

"they were clearly infringing the java api copyrights when creating their platform"

Yes, by apparently copying source code. Not by daring to design a competing product in the first place.

You do seem to be having problem understanding simple distinctions such as these for some reason, but they are the reason you're failing to address reality.

A problem with your statement, Oracle did not write Java, sun did. Also, Google started their re-implementation before that purchase and Sun had no objection to that, Oracle objected to what the original owner permitted.

> Oracle did not write Java, sun did. Also, Google started their re-implementation before that purchase

legal problems start long before the actual case is done, the oracle purchase only enabled their plan to sue google. The problem has existed long before that -- or are you thinking that oracle/sun CEO decided day before submitting legal papers that they need to sue google? It must have been several years in preparation before actual case happened.

But the java platform always had their original design encoded in the source code, and google should have detected the copy-pasting operation to be dangerous.

(it's absolutely trivial to detect that web browser's view-source feature is somehow dangerous because it allows copy-paste of javascript source code and half the planet is using it to do copyright infringement of javascript snippets. But if that's like trivial to detect, powerful companies like google must see their own copy-paste problem very clearly..)

"(it's absolutely trivial to detect that web browser's view-source feature is somehow dangerous because it allows copy-paste of javascript source code and half the planet is using it to do copyright infringement of javascript snippets. But if that's like trivial to detect, powerful companies like google must see their own copy-paste problem very clearly..)"

Erm, you DO realise that Java and Javascript are two totally different things, right? That the thing you're describing has nothing to do with Java, Oracle, Sun or any of the crap you've been arguing about for half this thread tangent?

> Erm, you DO realise that Java and Javascript are two totally different things, right?

yes, but everyone who has used browsers ever knows about browser view-source feature. Thus this is easy way to explain the actual problem in oracle vs google lawsuit -- i.e. copy-pasting has always had dubious reputation in copyright circles. It is uncontested that they cloned java api without having permission to do it. Their small copy-paste of the api was made significantly worse afterwards when they distributed the product all over the world.

Global companies who duplicate millions of copies of their software, need to be especially careful that they don't violate other companies copyrights. When this fails, it's guaranteed to give us more popcorn in form of legal paperwork.

Java comparability requires the same class names, method names, parameter names and types in modules of the same name else it is not compatible with existing code. Besides which Sun was happy with people duplicating the declarations, but Oracle tried to change the rules after they bought Sun.

"Who said you're allowed to use whatever other people created, especially in your own profession where you have no problems creating all the technology that you need in the future? It's your own future that you're building, not someone elses."

I prefer to turn to Sir Isaac Newton, who despite your wild claims achieved far more in his life than you ever will:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

Who to believe? One of the great early scientists to whom we owe much of the modern age, or some random dickhead on the internet who makes grandiose claims on a platform dedicated to the open standards he claims are criminal?

"Especially in your own profession, you need to create _everything_ that you need to survive yourself, not just the topmost layer"

That is, of course, not only bullshit but the absolute opposite of how any professional actually works.

No wonder you had a mental breakdown and burned out, if you insisted on reinventing everything that other people did before you in order to do the work you were actually employed to do.

Only experts can figure out solution better than your average professional. If it happens to be the opposite of what everyone else is doing, then it probably solves some important problems that everyone else missed.

"Only experts can figure out solution better than your average professional."

Perhaps so. But, based on the evidence here, you are neither.

"If it happens to be the opposite of what everyone else is doing, then it probably solves some important problems that everyone else missed."

Or, there are extremely good reasons why people are doing it the opposite way. Since you apparently refuse to learn from others that came before you, it's likely that you were just trying things that everyone else knew wouldn't work, but you insisted on working so hard on the dead end that you burned out trying.

"You can create it yourself, without ever doing stupid stuff like you propose."

You proposed it, dude.

So, where is the line? We all agree that having to create the tools used from scratch is stupid, but you claim that utilising other common high-level operations like APIs and existing file formats is both lazy and tantamount to piracy.

So, rather than making the rest of us guess where in your mind the acceptable line is, tell us. Then we can at least mock the silly claims you're making from the same level as you think you're making the argument from.

> you claim that utilising other common high-level operations like APIs and existing file formats is both lazy and tantamount to piracy.

It takes more effort to use existing file formats than inventing your own. But it's illegal operation because it requires "cloning" all the details that were present in the original. Only standardized file formats can be freely used, and those only because there's clear licensing scheme used for it. This is why there exists standardisation organisations available to untangle the differing requirements coming from different players. It's not allowed to clone file format that is not coming from these existing standardisation organisations with valid licensing structure.

Some file formats even have patents or other limitations, which I don't know much about, but significant mistakes have been done in this area, where popular formats which were carelessly duplicated for no good reason became defacto standards and it was necessary to standardize them after the fact. But generally using exact structure of someone elses software design is illegal operation and proper licensing structure is required if such thing is attempted.

"It takes more effort to use existing file formats than inventing your own."

No. Existing file formats are usually documented and easy to test across a range of products. Unless you have some real improvements to offer, creating a new one only confuses things, restricts your available market and makes life for everybody outside of your company more difficult. I can see you don't give 2 shits about the people who have to use and administer the crap you've coded, but believe me incompatibilities cause a LOT more work for everybody else.

There's no problem with creating a new format if there's something you need to achieve that the old ones can't do. Creating a new one for the hell of it because you've convinced yourself that your new program doesn't really need to communicate with anyone else's data or software is a ridiculous waste of time, both for you and anyone unfortunate enough to buy your product.

"But it's illegal operation"

Why do you insist on lying?

"Only standardized file formats can be freely used, and those only because there's clear licensing scheme used for it"

Absolute crap on both counts. But, again, I note that you are using a medium that depends on open formats to spread your lies, the irony is as thick as you pretend to be.

"This is why there exists standardisation organisations available to untangle the differing requirements coming from different players"

No, standards exist because there's too many idiots like you who insist on reinventing the wheel in order to create vendor lock-in, and people want to be able to operate using actual standards. People like you are what caused people to have to develop several versions of their website to work with different major browsers and why the inferior Microsoft browsers became a defacto monopoly for a while due to a lack of interoperability with accepted standards.

Several times in this thread, you seem to think you're claiming one thjng, but you are actually claiming another. Here, you think you're proving that bespoke file formats make life easier. But, I can easily come up with examples that have wasted literally millions of man hours due to their lack of interoperability.

Again, I apologise if you don't understand this, but in the real world what you are claiming is a lie.

> creating a new one only confuses things, restricts your available market

That is the whole purpose of copyright. Restrict the available market that pirates can get. All the pirates are always wanting larger piece of the globe, for no other reason than getting their warez popular among the peers.

It's no surprise that when you start following copyright limitations, your market size gets reduced to the allowed range.

"That is the whole purpose of copyright. Restrict the available market that pirates can get."

Yes. But, the things that you are proposing restrict YOUR market, not that of pirates. The pirates are copying the software you're trying to compete with, not creating their own. if you create your own bespoke file formats rather than retaining compatibility with existing ones, you lose the market that would be gained by being compatible with existing formats.

You are either getting yourself very confused, wrongly conflating competing products with piracy or are just making things up as you go along. Nowhere do you make coherent arguments that address how things work in the real world.

> No, standards exist because there's too many idiots like you who insist on reinventing the wheel in order to create vendor lock-in,

Biggest problem with standards is that the size of the features that need to be implemented to implement the standard is growing larger when more requirements from different players are included to it. Thus small companies cannot any longer implement the standard as specified in the standardisation specification. Thus it's better if those companies actually implement their own file formats, and work in the smaller market area, instead of trying to make broken version of the standard and causing tons of compability problems with some small details that the implementation missed.

Existing libraries cannot solve the issue, since the libs also have limitations about the scope of software where it is suitable, and thus multiple implementations are required to fill the whole world with standardized implementations. Also larger libraries which actually implements all the requirements seem to be heavier and they don't seem to have similar success than lightweight libraries that implement only part of the requirements. And it's unusable for compability if some companies requirements are not actually working at all.

"Biggest problem with standards is that the size of the features that need to be implemented to implement the standard is growing larger when more requirements from different players are included to it"

...and your solution to this is to needlessly create more file formats that need to be catered to?

"Thus small companies cannot any longer implement the standard as specified in the standardisation specification"

Only if they're dumb enough to create everything from scratch as you insist they do. Intelligent people would use existing libraries.

"Thus it's better if those companies actually implement their own file formats"

Why? That just means that people can't use their existing data with your program, and then can't choose to use something else to later edit or otherwise process the resulting file. Great for vendor lock-in if you love that sort of thing, a nightmare for anyone using the pile of shit you sold them.

Again, you seem to not be able to understand that most people will need to use more than one program on more than one platform to use their data. Your attempt at making your life easier only makes life much more difficult for everyone else, and reduces your market.

"Existing libraries cannot solve the issue, since the libs also have limitations about the scope of software where it is suitable"

You'll have to expand on that pile of bullshit, it doesn't address this reality again.

"Also larger libraries which actually implements all the requirements seem to be heavier and they don't seem to have similar success than lightweight libraries that implement only part of the requirements"

Bloat is a real problem, but randomly having every program implement a new incompatible format is hardly going to fix this.

> Bloat is a real problem, but randomly having every program implement a new incompatible format is hardly going to fix this.

It divides the world to small local areas where compability can be properly handled, and then there's only small number of interaction points which can be handled on global scale. Thus the small market area with their own file format is actually helping handling the global problems, since the existence of certain files in some area of the world is indication that the particular company is active in the area.

This small local area idea is now gaining ground -- already spoken languages divide europe to smaller language areas, and handling it is best left to the responsibility of local companies, or larger entities that can properly summon the necessary people required.

But file formats dividing the world is pretty new concept. Not everyone needs to immediately become global player.

"It divides the world to small local areas where compability can be properly handled"

Wait, you're not saying that every program needs to have its own file format, but every *region*? Wow, you're even more insane than I thought.

"Thus the small market area with their own file format is actually helping handling the global problems"

It really, really isn't. You know what drives piracy more than anything else? Not having the product legally available in that area. Trying to stop someone in the UK from accessing the same thing that their friend in the US is using is either going to kill your product or drive piracy.

"already spoken languages divide europe to smaller language areas|"

Erm, you do realise that people move around, right? Especially in Europe? In my office in the south of Spain, I'm currently working with people from England, Spain, Croatia, Lithuania, South Africa, Tunisia and Italy. There's also common languages (English, French and Spanish are the 3 most commonly spoken, with English being the one spoken by everyone).

What are you trying to dictate to us - that everyone only access a format for their own language (in that case, which one - the language of where we are sat (Spanish) or the one in which we work (English)?)? Or, are you saying that we should be unable to communicate with colleagues and suppliers in the US and Australia because they need to use a different region's file format?

Your ideas are idiotic and can not work in the modern world.

"But file formats dividing the world is pretty new concept@

It's a new concept because it's a horrible idea that will never work in the real world.

> You know what drives piracy more than anything else? Not having the product legally available in that area.

Well, if the people actually followed copyright restrictions, the limitations on expanding their market areas would actually let them focus on their local communities, and they could provide local service that fits better to their peculiarities, and when those local companies are available, end users could actually buy a product from local shop instead of insisting on using piracy coming from another geographic area. Then when shit hits the fan, they would actually have people responsible of the products that they use, and large companies wouldn't need to tweak the software from india every time someone sneezes in bulgaria.

"they could provide local service that fits better to their peculiarities"

You see, this is why you fail. People move around. Even if they didn't, not everyone has the same needs just because they live in the same area. There are many niche markets, traditionally poorly served precisely because people think small like you.

Just because you live in the UK, for example, that doesn't mean you don't want to buy a new anime. Just because you live in Italy, that doesn't mean you don't want the Russian dub of a particular movie. You can live in Chile but still have a predilection for Bollywood. Some people pay a premium to legally import from elsewhere. Some pirate. You don't magically service this market by having them have access to less things.

Global markets allow all of these customers to be serviced with what they wish to buy, Your idea is to block them from getting what they want because they have tastes outside of their local area community. It's idiotic, and will fail.

"end users could actually buy a product from local shop instead of insisting on using piracy coming from another geographic area"

Not if the shop doesn't offer the product to begin with. What you're trying to achieve is less people having access to the products they want. That will not work.

"large companies wouldn't need to tweak the software from india every time someone sneezes in bulgaria."

No, they just have to replicate the code base for every country instead. Or, have a team of coders in every country. Or, whatever insane expensive and unprofitable idea you have that only serves to encourage people to pirate, because you literally refuse to offer them what they want.

Get outside, have a look around about how the real world operates. People are collaborating globally, whereas you seem to think Microsoft would do better if it just removed all internationalisation from Office and sold a one language version in every country.

Well, this is because companies in the local area are not following copyright strictly enough to notice that they're not allowed to expand their market to include some unknown parts of the world, and thus they have no time for local people.

> What you're trying to achieve is less people having access to the products they want.

End result is more products, when both local companies and the existing global companies are both competing in the area. If only global companies and piracy are available, then the products end users are using have no support organisation available and worst case, their market will demand services from other parts of the world, who could also build their own local services, if only they didn't need to service rest of the world first.

"Well, this is because companies in the local area are not following copyright strictly enough to notice that they're not allowed to expand their market to include some unknown parts of the world, and thus they have no time for local people."

Wow, your idiocy isn't even making internal sense.

"End result is more products"

You would apparently rather have 200 isolated unworkable products for each country in the world than one that works everywhere. No wonder you burned out and failed.

"their market will demand services from other parts of the world"

But, you've just claimed they should not offer services to anywhere other than their local area. Make up your mind!

" build their own local services, if only they didn't need to service rest of the world first."

Based on his claim of "It takes more effort to use existing file formats than inventing your own" you'd think it would mean, going by his entire premise of rewarding effort, copyright infringement would be more valuable, instead of the other way around.

But I think we've already concluded that tp's equivalent of a thought process is sitting on the toilet, taking a dump, and somehow still missing the porcelain throne...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

"So fair use is mostly useful for pirates"

Absolutely false. Fair use is mainly useful for people who wish to legitimately use content for all sorts of activities that in no way detract from the original content, and in many cases greatly benefit them.

If you're going to lie about the people who depend on fair use every day, I think it's safe to say that the rest of your words will be lies.

"Guess DRM was necessary because controlling piracy was otherwise difficult"

However, DRM is an absolute failure, and when the pirates crack it (and they always do), it only affects people who have actually paid and ends up making the pirated content *more* valuable than the legal item.

"We still haven't seen any reason why end user can't use the product from their own home, without distributing the product all over the globe."

You mean apart from the fact that you assholes support making even offline single player games "phone home" and refuse to operate if your servers are down?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> Fair use is mainly useful for people who wish to legitimately use content for all sorts of activities that in no way detract from the original content,

Why does their plan to "legimately use content" always involve distributing it around the globe? Their end user license allows them to use the product in their home, for their personal use. But no, it needs to be available to all the friends, neighbours, pirate groups, global networks for leaking sensitive information, the president of the USA, CIA, NSA, white house staff, and their cat.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

> Is there a bowl of overcooked pasta where your brain is supposed to be?

This is better description of our software process than you can ever imagine. That is exactly what happened - people spent too many hours tweaking some irrelevant details, and end result is few million gadgets to the trashcan, plus plenty of people burned out for stress related problems while tweaking software for next deadline. We failed to miss any of the deadlines, but instead our human nature was changed to mindless robots just following orders.

OK, I think I see the overall picture now. You're a software drone who got burnt out after fighting too many tight deadlines. You now see any attempt at making something compatible with whatever spaghetti code you spat out as being an affront to the work that drove you to an early breakdown. You also take personal credit for the product you worked on, even though it's doubtful you had anything to do with the overall direction of the product, although you now regret wasting so much time with that product and wish you had have the drive to head up an original product.

That's OK, we all get lost sometimes. What a shame your only argument is to make the lives of other people so much more difficult so that your product can retain its usefulness (and yes, the poor admins and users who would have to use the products you insist remain incompatible with other software will increase their stress levels many fold).

> You're a software drone who got burnt out after fighting too many tight deadlines.

You bet deadlines are important, if every error in the end product gets duplicated 10 million times, and all the users who find the error will fill the internet with bullshit about products doing this and that, always focusing on the small irrelevant details that just look bad, but doesn't change the behaviour of the devices one bit.

This is why missing the deadline is strictly forbidden, even though the software industry doesn't have stellar reputation for getting projects working properly within the deadline.

I'm sure that word salad meant something in your head. Although your inability to express yourself clearly, comprehend the way the industry works and why the deadlines are in place explain why you failed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

Re: Re: Re: Economics of movie creation

"Competition on price is kinda nasty when pirates can provide the service for free"

Then find some other way to compete.

"still your fixed costs are burning hole to your bank account"

His comment was very clear in its point - if they were factoring hypothetical future licensing 20 years from the time the film was made into their fixed costs, they really need someone better controlling those costs.

That is completely true. You deciding to spend some extravagant amount of money on something unnecessary does not mean you get it back. Pretending that piracy equals lost sales and that fair use mean that people are stealing from you are just not the way the real world works.

Re: Economics of movie creation

How is the economics of movie creation working in this situation?

Same as always: baroque accounting that causes every movie to show a huge loss such that nobody gets royalties. We should take this as proof copyright isn't working for movies (and we should just abolish it rather than getting one tiny exception at a time).

Re: Economics of movie creation

Internet hobbyists already do that. Filmmakers (including the filmmakers who make the films which might be sampled, and also sample other films) are not hurting any market by doing something they are already allowed to do. It is being asked that an extra artificial barrier in the way of so exercising fair use be removed.

No one is going to skip watching The Matrix because they saw some clip in another film.

Re: Would recording and enhancement of analog projection be "good enough" and legal?

> a fair-use clip was not a precise digital copy of the original?

This probably refers to the betamax vhs decision, where video recordings had only limited ability to duplicate because the quality of the recording decreased every time the casettes were cloned.

enhancement of the signal would increase the number of copies that could be made before the recording would be unusable.

Current situation differs significantly from the vhs decision, since digital technologies are available. Only one analog-to-digital conversion is needed to arrive at perfect copies -scheme currently, so if the original was some kind of analog signal, it doesn't matter one bit if there are people who can do the conversion to digital.

Of course libraries and content preservation industry have good uses for such technologies, preserving old vhs tapes is one such usage. But they seem to be asking for permissions from content owners, so their industry looks significantly better than other players in the market.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Would recording and enhancement of analog projection be "good enough" and legal?

It did, which is why there are different words for copying and encoding in the digital world. Yet, plenty of people were still happy to buy 10th generation VHS tapes despite their degradation, for a large number of reasons unrelated to the act of copying. Whether or not the copy was perfect does not change the Betamax decision.

There are reasons why piracy exists, and they're not addressed by lying about what piracy and fair use are, nor your incorrect assertions about how software projects work. Your attempt to distract from your rambling lies above is not going to work here.

Re: Re: Would recording and enhancement of analog projection be "good enough" and legal?

This probably refers to the betamax vhs decision, where video recordings had only limited ability to duplicate because the quality of the recording decreased every time the casettes were cloned. enhancement of the signal would increase the number of copies that could be made before the recording would be unusable.

Nope. Generational loss was not a factor that the Supreme Court considered. Plus, why would they? No one was recording video digitally in 1984 outside of a laboratory. Everyone suffered from generational loss and so fair users of VCRs were in the same position as authorized users.

DRM not defeated?

"The MPAA goes on to suggest that if the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress were to allow these exemptions, it would lead to "widespread hacking" that would ultimately defeat the DRM in Blu-ray discs entirely."

I'm pretty sure that DRM in Blu-ray discs was defeated day-0. There are already plenty of tools out there that enable "hackers" to rip their BD collection...

MPAA = Parasites

"Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.

Copyright is not based on consumers but those who produce. It definitely does not mean "consumption" for free.

This is just the usual assault by Techdirt and free-loaders. Yes, it'd be NICE for some if could take unlimited "clips" from every movie ever made and "create" some hideous agglomeration, but that's not fair use, it's UNFAIR competition, paying nothing for material. Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use.

No one's Rights are at all affected by exclusive ownership or DRM code locking up content. They are free to make their own -- and to try to keep it from being stolen! But instead are trying to use the valuable work of others for FREE.

When there's conflict between people who worked and paid to produce content and free-loaders, then producers have not just precedence, but ALL the say, that's what "exclusive" means.

Re: Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.

> What do you think filmmaker associations comprise of if not "those who produce", genius?

FREE-LOADING SECOND-HANDERS for the content in question. As stated. And I'm SURE that if this flies, will be THOUSANDS more free-loaders trying for gain without paying license fees. -- As mentioned above, which you should presumably know, "fair use" is a defense, does not mean a Right to use whatever content wish.

Re: random bull

"Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done."

Funny. You actually quote the copyright clause, yet you get the meaning totally the opposite of reality. To quote the actual words:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Huh. Funny how you omitted the word LIMITED, isn't it? Also funny how the stated reason is to encourage more works to be created for the public. The existence of copyright is the PUBLIC agreeing to grant a LIMITED exception to the PUBLIC domain in order that the PUBLIC get more works. The opposite of what you claim, obviously.

"Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use."

Again, not only a lie but an utter fantasy. The licence would be underpinned by the mechanisms of copyright. Without copyright, fair use is not required, as the material is public domain anyway. Fair use just means that there are times where the use of content is allowed without needing to get a licence or infringe copyright. Not the stupid scenarios you're trying to attack - that nobody but you has ever suggested - just the ones that people are actually stating.

As usual - stop inventing new realities to justify your hatred toward those who understand this one. It's not healthy.

Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.

You need to go take some classes in reading comprehension. You're quoting the METHOD and then claiming it's the PURPOSE. In other words, you've quite literally put the cart before the horse.

"TO promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, BY securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.

"Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use"

If I had to license it, I had to get your permission. Fair use is copying WITHOUT your permission, therefore your example cannot be fair use.

Re: Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.

"Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use"

Many attempt to argue there is not such thing as fair use and they do a much better job of it than yourself.

These arguments are silly, everyone should pay for every use be it personal or commercial does not matter and yet they scream when not given free advertising because media refuses to run their story due to cost of licensing any content. Media should be forced into paying and publishing your crappy content regardless of whether it is of interest to potential media customers - brilliant!

Re: Re: Re: &quot;Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption.&quot; --- Nope, it's to &quot;secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right&quot;, and set

Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption.&quot; --- Nope, it's to &quot;secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right&quot;, and

0x80000000

Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use.

No, licensed uses are NEVER fair uses. To be a fair use, a use must first be prima facie infringing.

When there's conflict between people who worked and paid to produce content and free-loaders, then producers have not just precedence, but ALL the say, that's what "exclusive" means.

No, the word “exclusive” in copyright is a term of art. It means ‘the right to exclude others.’

So for example, the exclusive right to make copies is just a right to exclude other people from making copies. But the right is limited, and often doesn’t apply. There’s definitely nothing about ‘precedence’ (especially since the exclusive right isn’t an affirmative right to actually do anything — just because you can prohibit other people from doing something doesn’t give you a right to do it yourself), and you don’t get ‘all the say’ because the exclusive rights are limited. They’re also often held by people other than authors.

Re: 0x80000000

In patent law exclusive has been implemented as a right to exclude. In copyright law it has been implemented as a positive right, I.e., only the copyright holder has the lawful right to practice each of the enumerated positive rights.

Re: Re: 0x80000000

Got a citation for that? Particularly one where the principle you claim has been put to the test — such as using a positive right to make and distribute copies of copyrighted works plus the federal supremacy clause of the Constitution to override, say, state defamation, publicity, or trade secret law and to prevent being enjoined from making and distributing copies. I mean, my God; the applications for evading state criminal charges involving child porn and revenge porn (where the suspect holds the copyright) would be tremendous.

Oh, and if copyright does provide a positive right, do licensees get to share in it assuming that it isn’t contrary to the particular terms of the license?

And what happens when the copyright expires?

And how do you square this with the First Amendment which, but for copyright, protects an inherent, God-given right to make copies, etc., perhaps rendering any positive aspects of a copyright moot?

I don’t think you’re right and I don’t think you’ll have anything to prove your point, but I look forward to seeing something.

Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

Compare and contrast 35 USC 271 for patents with 17 USC 106 for copyrights. The former does not confer a positive right to practice an invention; it confers only the right to prevent others from doing so. In contrast, Title 17 confers a positive and exclusive right for a copyright holder to engage in the performance of the enumerated rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

“Copyright is, in fact, only a negative right to prevent the appropriation of the lab outs of an author by another.”

You don’t seem to be trolling as so often happens around here, so I’ll poke around a little bit more. I encourage you to consider this question though: suppose copyright didn’t exist. Would authors still have the right to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, and publicly perform and display their works? If so, what positive right is copyright granting, exactly?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

You are citing cases that presumably deal with the Copyright Act of 1909. It was reaplaced by the Copyright Act of 1976, with Section 106 of the 1976 act being the relevant portion that recites the rights conferred to authors.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

The language is similar enough.

The 1909 Act says (without getting too deep into it):> [A]ny person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this Act, shall have the exclusive right: (1) To print, republish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work

The 1976 Act says:> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce ... (2) to prepare derivative works ... (3) to distribute copies ... (4) ... to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) ... to display the copyrighted work publicly

Both of them put all the rights within the context of exclusion, which is negative language. Meanwhile the House Report that accompanied the 1976 Act pointed out that the authorization wording is the way it is in part to avoid questions as to contributory infringement.

Patents are clearer about being negative rights because of the blocking patent issue, but the lack of that problem in copyright (because there is no novelty requirement and independent creation is A-OK) doesn’t change the nature of copyrights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

To clarify at least one difference between the two bodies of law, patent law requires that an invention be new, useful and non-obvious, whereas copyright law only requires that a work of authorship be original (and even then only very modestly so). For inventions that are deemed patentable after examination, you quite properly note the rights being cast in what I term negative language for the reason that the award of a patent in no way suggests that one practicing what is covered by the patent will not infringe patents that may be issued to others. As a matter of proper draftsmanship, I would ordinarily expect copyright law to follow this approach and couch the grant of rights in a negative manner. For reasons I have never been able to ascertain, copyright grant language is framed in a positive manner, I.e., telling the author somewhat inaccurately that he/she has the sole right to copy, distribute, etc. Obviously this cannot be correct for the simple reason that there is the possibility that material may have been borrowed from a pre-existing work secured by copyright, and neither a license or fair use pertains. So, while I certainly agree that copyright may be called by some a negative right, it is worthwhile noting that the statutory language is drafted more broadly.

Such differences in language may seem to some to be of no moment, but there is one thing the practice of law long ago taught me...fact situations are infinitely variable, and it is a virtual certainty that one such situation will eventually arise that challenges and changes what might otherwise have been longstanding conventional wisdom.

BTW, thank you for the case cite. Goes to show that cases can come to the fore even after many decades of legal practice with nary a mention of it having arisen.

Re: Re: Re: 0x80000000

Compare and contrast 35 USC 271 for patents with 17 USC 106 for copyrights. The former does not confer a positive right to practice an invention; it confers only the right to prevent others from doing so. In contrast, Title 17 confers a positive and exclusive right for a copyright holder to engage in the performance of the enumerated rights.